Appeal No. 2004-2102
Application No. 09/191,256
Examiner has repeatedly pointed to large sections of Scherpbier
to support the rejection without explaining how the reference
teaches the claimed limitations. See lines 6-10 of page 3 of the
Final Action (Paper Number 14) for example. The Examiner
attempts to remedy this lack of support in the rejection by
explaining their position in the answer. See for example, the
answer at page 9, line 18, through page 10, line 12. Here we
find that the Examiner’s explanation of their position with
regard to “a listening program responsive to requests for remote
access” still does not fully cover the claimed “request for
remote access.”
Appellants also argue at page 6 of the brief, that “nor does
Scherpbier teach a client agent capable of controlling the client
computer.” Again we agree. The Examiner has pointed to a large
section of Scherpbier to support the rejection without explaining
how the reference teaches the claimed limitation. See lines 6-10
of page 3 of the Final Action. We have reviewed column 3, line
40, to column 4, line 50, of Scherpbier and do not find any
mention of “a client agent for communicating” as claimed by
Appellants. With regard to this claim limitation, the Examiner
has not attempted to remedy this lack of support in the rejection
by explaining their position in the answer. Therefore, we find
that Scherpbier fails to teach this limitation.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007